-
Someone mentioned in another thread that Ultimate Jeopardy! would decrease the number of new players to get to play this taping season or year.
If the producers felt bad about that for some reason, would making J! a 4-player game for regular season (ala Super Jeopardy!) be a viable option? Basically, I'm curious how having an extra player affected the dynamics of the game -- because I don't remember back that far :-p
Thanks!
-
I wouldn't suggest it.
As you found out on Super, it fundamentally changed the game. I mean, then why not five or six?
-
[quote name=\'reason1024\' date=\'Dec 29 2004, 08:14 PM\']Someone mentioned in another thread that Ultimate Jeopardy! would decrease the number of new players to get to play this taping season or year.
If the producers felt bad about that for some reason, would making J! a 4-player game for regular season (ala Super Jeopardy!) be a viable option? Basically, I'm curious how having an extra player affected the dynamics of the game -- because I don't remember back that far :-p
Thanks!
[snapback]69074[/snapback]
[/quote]
WHat they COULD do I guess is ditch the Summer reruns next Summer and do a 52 week season. THat would open up another 60 contestant spots and make J! the first syndie game show to do a 52 week season(the Challengers would have done a 52 week season in 1990-91, but when the show was known to not be renewed for a second season, the last few weeks of the run were reruns). Of course it would probably hurt the prize budget a tad more and force more work for the staff, and six days more of studio time.
-
I somehow don't think that anybody at Jeopardy! is going to feel particularly bad about slighting the potential contestant pool - at least, not enough to change the format of the show or schedule extra shows to mollify these folks. It's not like people are going to start boycotting the tryouts in protest or anything.
That said, I'm still fundamentally bothered by the fact that one particular player out of the whole lot is getting a minimum of $250,000 for playing a maximum of one three-show match. But of course, game shows aren't meritocracies. I just wonder if 12.5 weeks of Ken-free foreplay is going to interest America.
-
I just wonder if 12.5 weeks of Ken-free foreplay is going to interest America.
My prediction is ratings staying the same. I too was bothered with Ken being plugged in there, but if more people are interested in "Jeopardy" as a result, then I guess more power to them.
-Jason
-
Relax... Jeopardy! isn't in danger of leaving television very soon, so there will still be plenty of opportunities for us all to become contestants.
-
I would make the TOC a 4-player thing. Look at Super Jeopardy. Two of the things about it, is also a thing about the current TOC: $250K Grand Prize, and the round 1 values of 200-1000 (Which is already in effect, so we can scratch that).
So, to equal Super Jeopardy's feat, I'd make the quarterfinals a 4-player affair, semi-finals a 4-player affair, and the finals a 3-player affair.
Looked neat in that format.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 30 2004, 12:36 AM\']Looked neat in that format.
[/quote]
And just how long did it last?
-
It lasted until the final show (where Bruce Seymour won).
-
[quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 29 2004, 11:56 PM\']It lasted until the final show
[snapback]69121[/snapback]
[/quote]
It lasted until the final show? I did NOT know that. I always assumed they'd just kept it going for a few weeks AFTER the final show, just for the hell of it.
[/sarcasm]
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 29 2004, 10:47 PM\'][quote name=\'gameshowguy2000\' date=\'Dec 30 2004, 12:36 AM\']Looked neat in that format.
[/quote]
And just how long did it last?
[snapback]69118[/snapback]
[/quote]
Exactly the 13 weeks it was supposed to.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 30 2004, 03:36 AM\']Exactly the 13 weeks it was supposed to.
[/quote]
Correct, but it wasn't ever done again, leading me to think that it did poorly in the ratings; otherwise; it [or another game] might have been a perpetual summer replacement on ABC.
-
Of course it would probably hurt the prize budget a tad more and force more work for the staff, and six days more of studio time.
You could have a separate staff working on the summer episodes, including someone else hosting the show, filling in for Alex. When "The Challengers" planned on being a 52-week, all-new game show, there were plans on another host filling in for Dick some weeks (those plans were never realised, of course).
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 30 2004, 04:47 AM\']Correct, but it wasn't ever done again, leading me to think that it did poorly in the ratings; otherwise; it [or another game] might have been a perpetual summer replacement on ABC.
[snapback]69141[/snapback]
[/quote]
"Monopoly" wasn't a perpetual summer replacement either, though the theme rocked :-D
Keep in mind also that these were summer replacements on Saturday evenings. I don't remember *any* show, rerun or first-run, that was on that Saturday evenings in the Summer of 1990 that produced any eye worthy ratings of note.
And as far as that summer replacement block of game shows goes, which came first: SJ! or Monopoly??? That is, wasn't SJ! slapped together at the last minute to be a pairing for the already committed-to-air Monopoly?
-
[quote name=\'reason1024\' date=\'Dec 29 2004, 08:14 PM\']If the producers felt bad about that for some reason, would making J! a 4-player game for regular season (ala Super Jeopardy!) be a viable option?
[snapback]69074[/snapback]
[/quote]
Wouldn't that be a case of Mo' Contestant Syndrome?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Dec 30 2004, 08:48 PM\']Wouldn't that be a case of Mo' Contestant Syndrome?
[snapback]69282[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yes, and Boy Meets Boy had a case of 'Mo Contestant Syndrome.
-
I dunno about the "J! isn't leaving..." thing.
Certainly not imminently soon, but I do begin to fear that J! may be in a for a big shock once the Ultimate Tournament ends. Ken-mania might obsolete the show, because then no one will really care much anymore after this tournament.
-
Concerning the 4-player format, you may recall, as Ken Jennings was nearing the end of his 75-game run on the show, that as a quasi-gag, I picked up on a suggestion in a news story for a "Ken Jennings Road Kill Tournament" and came up with just such a thing in which the 148 players he defeated over the course of his 74 Jeopardy wins would be brought back to play in a tournament of their own.
The format for my proposed "tournament" would have required 4-player games throughout its duration, with the first round of play reducing the starting field of 148 players to 37 game-winners, to which would be added the top 27 scorers from the non-winners to create a second-round field of 64. That field would have then be reduced to 16 semi-finalists, and then to 4 finalists in the next two rounds of tournament play, with the four finalists competing in a three-day total-point playoff to determine the eventual tournament winner. (And the whole package would have fit nicely into a 12-week, 60-program run.)
But I do detect a problem using 4-player play in regular Jeopardy games: Since, under the program's current prize structure, only the game winners get to keep the money they accumulate over the course of their play, the tendency would be to reduce the amount of money a daily winner would receive as a prize, since the total player score for a game would be spread among four players, rather than the current three -- and lower player winnings over time may not go over well with the audience!
The Super Jeopardy tournament that the ABC-TV network aired during the summer of 1990 compensated for that by increasing the score values for the game clues (to 200-1000 in the first round of play, and to 500-2500 in the second round), and playing the games for points, rather than dollars.
Michael Brandenburg
(The lesson here: Keep the current three-player format for regular Jeopardy play, lest you end up as a future "Jump the Shark" notable.)
-
[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'Jan 1 2005, 08:40 AM\']The Super Jeopardy tournament that the ABC-TV network aired during the summer of 1990 compensated for that by increasing the score values for the game clues (to 200-1000 in the first round of play, and to 500-2500 in the second round), and playing the games for points, rather than dollars.
[snapback]69408[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yes. Loved it. Double Jeopardy was really Double And A Half Jeopardy. You'll notice I did not say Double Jeopardy And A Half because I don't want to get you going again.
-
And the issue was moot anyway because they were playing for points instead of dollars all the way through.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jan 2 2005, 11:08 PM\']And the issue was moot anyway because they were playing for points instead of dollars all the way through.
[snapback]69580[/snapback]
[/quote]
Didn't the two players in the final who failed to win the $250K get to keep their earnings with a certain minimum guarantee, like they do in the TOC's?
(Even if I'm right, I acknowledge the Horanity of the question, and I acknowledge that every single other game of the run was in fact played for points, and that I'm sure that is what brought on your comment.)
-
It wasn't clear to me. Alex did use the word "guarantee," but the scores were announced as points just as they were at the lower levels of play, and neither player came close to matching the amount in question.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jan 2 2005, 11:46 PM\']It wasn't clear to me. Alex did use the word "guarantee," but the scores were announced as points just as they were at the lower levels of play, and neither player came close to matching the amount in question.
[snapback]69587[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, the world may never know, then. :)
-
[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'Jan 1 2005, 08:40 AM\']The Super Jeopardy tournament that the ABC-TV network aired during the summer of 1990 compensated for that by increasing the score values for the game clues (to 200-1000 in the first round of play, and to 500-2500 in the second round), and playing the games for points, rather than dollars.
[snapback]69408[/snapback]
[/quote]
Well, wait a minute. They only had the 4-player format for the first round; the Semis and Championship were played with three players. And I thought the increased values were patronizing then, and I still do now. Jeopardy is Jeopardy, and inflating the values made it seem like the champions were better players than they really were. (eg: Bob Blake finished a QF game with 40k, far and away the best J! score ever; he MUST be the best player ever.)
It makes no difference if they play 10-50, 100-500, 1-5 or 1 Billion to 5 Billion, it's still Jeopardy. Let people just play the game the way it is.
On a similar note, I was kinda hoping that J! would increase their values to 250-1250 and 500-2500 for their regular play, but that would make the record calculations all kinds of icky.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 03:16 AM\']It makes no difference if they play 10-50, 100-500, 1-5 or 1 Billion to 5 Billion, it's still Jeopardy. Let people just play the game the way it is.
[snapback]69590[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yes. Yes! YES!! Mo' Points Syndrome.
By the way, "Horanity" is duly noted as the first Invision coined word of 2005.
-
[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 01:46 AM\']It wasn't clear to me. Alex did use the word "guarantee," but the scores were announced as points just as they were at the lower levels of play, and neither player came close to matching the amount in question.
[snapback]69587[/snapback]
[/quote]
3rd place in the Super J! final(DAve Traini, who was well into a minus situation at the end of DJ!) got $25K, and 2nd place(Bob Verini) got $50K
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 07:37 AM\']3rd place in the Super J! final(DAve Traini, who was well into a minus situation at the end of DJ!) got $25K, and 2nd place(Bob Verini) got $50K
[snapback]69608[/snapback]
[/quote]
And, as usual, nobody asked. Feeling left out again, Horan?
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 08:31 AM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 03:16 AM\']It makes no difference if they play 10-50, 100-500, 1-5 or 1 Billion to 5 Billion, it's still Jeopardy. Let people just play the game the way it is.
[snapback]69590[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yes. Yes! YES!! Mo' Points Syndrome.
By the way, "Horanity" is duly noted as the first Invision coined word of 2005.
[snapback]69601[/snapback]
[/quote]
To paraphrase Herb Morrison (or Les Nessman)..."Oh the Horanity..."
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 12:16 AM\']On a similar note, I was kinda hoping that J! would increase their values to 250-1250 and 500-2500 for their regular play, but that would make the record calculations all kinds of icky.
[snapback]69590[/snapback]
[/quote]
According to Harry Eisenberg's J! book, the reason they went to $100-$1000 instead of $50-500 in '84 was because they didn't want to slow the game down by having contestants ask for clues "for one hundred and fifty" and "two hundred and fifty." It'd be even worse with a $250, a $750, and a $1250 up there (which is probably why they didn't use that configuration for SJ!'s J! round).
-
[quote name=\'Don Howard\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 08:31 AM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 03:16 AM\']It makes no difference if they play 10-50, 100-500, 1-5 or 1 Billion to 5 Billion, it's still Jeopardy. Let people just play the game the way it is.
[snapback]69590[/snapback]
[/quote]
Yes. Yes! YES!! Mo' Points Syndrome.
By the way, "Horanity" is duly noted as the first Invision coined word of 2005.
[snapback]69601[/snapback]
[/quote]
Do NOT encourage him. The last thing I need is Zach wearing out a term as if it's a compliment.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 05:48 PM\']Do NOT encourage him. The last thing I need is Zach wearing out a term as if it's a compliment.
[/quote]
Too late, if you ask me.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 05:54 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 05:48 PM\']Do NOT encourage him. The last thing I need is Zach wearing out a term as if it's a compliment.
[/quote]
Too late, if you ask me.
[snapback]69691[/snapback]
[/quote]
Exactly my point. I don't want another one worn out, not that I'm trying to make this about me.
-
[quote name=\'gameshowsteve\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 03:06 PM\']According to Harry Eisenberg's J! book, the reason they went to $100-$1000 instead of $50-500 in '84 was because they didn't want to slow the game down by having contestants ask for clues "for one hundred and fifty" and "two hundred and fifty."
[/quote]
I've been trying to tell people that for years, when they try to "improve" upon J!'s scoring system. Personally, I think "sixteen-hundred" is enough of a mouthful.
-
[quote name=\'fostergray82\' date=\'Jan 3 2005, 03:48 PM\']Do NOT encourage him. The last thing I need is Zach wearing out a term as if it's a compliment.
[/quote]
Just so long as it's eminently clear to him that we're laughing AT him and not WITH him, I think it will be okay.
And make no mistake, Zach, that's what I'm doing, at least.
-
What's wrong with players saying "one fifty" as oppoaed to "one hundred & fifty"? My thinking is that people may hear that as being the same as $1.50 in written form(same with "two fifty($2.50)). That's why they chose the hundreds incraments for clarity sake I think.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jan 4 2005, 05:26 AM\']What's wrong with players saying "one fifty" as oppoaed to "one hundred & fifty"? My thinking is that people may hear that as being the same as $1.50 in written form(same with "two fifty($2.50)). That's why they chose the hundreds incraments for clarity sake I think.
[snapback]69810[/snapback]
[/quote]
Good point, Craig. In fact, while watching Jeopardy! in 1978, when someone called "Odds And Ends for one twenty-five" I was certain the value of the clue was $1.25 and told this to my mother.
-
[quote name=\'Craig Karlberg\' date=\'Jan 4 2005, 03:26 AM\']What's wrong with players saying "one fifty" as oppoaed to "one hundred & fifty"? My thinking is that people may hear that as being the same as $1.50 in written form(same with "two fifty($2.50)). That's why they chose the hundreds incraments for clarity sake I think.
[snapback]69810[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've noticed you do much better when you don't bother thinking. Because you're not even freakin' close here.
The problem is still that people read numbers in different ways, and it's going to slow down the game regardless. JEEZ.
-
[quote name=\'Michael Brandenburg\' date=\'Jan 1 2005, 08:39 AM\']The Super Jeopardy tournament that the ABC-TV network aired during the summer of 1990 compensated for that by increasing the score values for the game clues (to 200-1000 in the first round of play, and to 500-2500 in the second round), and playing the games for points, rather than dollars.
[snapback]69407[/snapback]
[/quote]
I was curious, why didn't "Super Jeopardy!" just do 400-2000 instead?
-Joe R.
-
[quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Jan 4 2005, 10:45 AM\']I was curious, why didn't "Super Jeopardy!" just do 400-2000 instead?
[/quote]
Because 500 is a nice round number, and it doesn't matter as much when it's only points.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Jan 4 2005, 01:06 PM\'][quote name=\'JRaygor\' date=\'Jan 4 2005, 10:45 AM\']I was curious, why didn't "Super Jeopardy!" just do 400-2000 instead?
[/quote]
Because 500 is a nice round number, and it doesn't matter as much when it's only points.
[snapback]69861[/snapback]
[/quote]
And that , to me, was the problem with SJ!.... no money syndrome....i think, for the race to 250K, they could have put dollar signs on the board....with the winner of the tourney getting a bob stewart-like total raised to 250K....
It wouldn't have cost THAT much more...
-
Good point, Craig. In fact, while watching Jeopardy! in 1978, when someone called "Odds And Ends for one twenty-five" I was certain the value of the clue was $1.25 and told this to my mother.
You sure you weren't watching the Canadian version? :-D
Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")